Bulgaria: Religious Liberty
A Brief Historical and Legal Description of Religious Liberty
Bulgaria is a parliamentary republic ruled by a democratically elected government. It declared independence from Turkey in 1908, became a Communist nation in 1944, joined the United Nations in 1945, and rejected communism in 1989.1 Since the fall of communism, there has been controversy in Bulgaria over what level of religious freedom the government should allow. Members of the old regime contend that “non-traditional” religions, those other than the officially recognized Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Protestantism, Islam and Judaism, destabilize the country by allowing new social and cultural forces to influence the people. More progressive members of government, human rights and religious liberty organizations, as well as members of “non-traditional” religions, advocate greater freedom.
On July 1991, Bulgaria passed its current Constitution.2 Bulgaria joined the Council of Europe in May 1993 and ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in September of the same year.3 The U.S. Department of State reports, “Bulgaria’s human rights performance continued to be generally good in 1993. Freedom of press, assembly, religion, speech, association and travel were respected, with some significant exceptions.”4 In its map, “Suppression of Religious Liberty Around the World,” Christian Solidarity International rates Bulgaria as a country with “few violations, none serious, of basic religious liberties.”5
The majority of religious Bulgarian citizens in the country are Orthodox, but there is tension between Evangelical and Orthodox denominations because Evangelical Protestants are providing greater humanitarian relief to the population than their Orthodox counterparts. Minority ethnic and national groups include Armenians, Greeks, Gypsies, Jews and Turks. While the majority of citizens are nonreligious, 26% are Orthodox, 9% Sunni Muslims, 50,000 Catholics, and 50,000 other Christians.6 The Encyclopedia of Human Rights reports that “the government officially discourages the practice of religion, so there are no official statistics on the number of persons practicing a certain religion or belief.”7 The Baptist Union reports that, as of 1994, it has more than 25 congregations in Bulgaria and 2,000 to 3,000 members.8 One report estimates that “There are approximately 100,000 evangelical Christians in Bulgaria.”9
Although the State discourages the practice of religion, the Encyclopedia reports that the government “renders assistance to all recognized faiths, supplements their budgets, provides relief from various taxes, and takes care of the protection and restoration of historical and cultural monuments of a religious nature.”10 The U.S. State Department Report on Human Rights expands, “A number of major religious bodies, including the Muslim and Jewish communities, receive government financial support.”11
Although the Government says it provides support to religious communities, the Organization of the Islamic Conference stated in a 1988 report: “That the Muslims in Bulgaria have been denied free use of their places of worship (mosques), and the restrictions on their use on a particular day in a week or on a particular time only is a negation of a basic religious right of Muslims.”12
Constitutional and Legislative Provisions Regarding Religion
The 1991 Bulgarian Constitution vests sovereignty in the people, guarantees its citizens “[f]reedom of speech, association, press, assembly, religion and travel,” and recognizes Eastern Orthodox Christianity as the “traditional” religion.13 Constitutional provisions relating to religious liberty are as follows:
Article 13 (1): There is freedom of religion.
(2): Religious institutions are separate from the state.
(3): The Eastern Orthodox religion is the traditional religion of the Republic of Bulgaria.
(4): Religious communities and institutions or religious convictions may not be used in the pursuit of political objectives.14
Article 37 (1): Freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and choice of religion or religious or atheistic views are inviolable. The state encourages tolerance and respect among believers of different faiths as well as between believers and nonbelievers.
(2): Freedom of conscience and religion may not be detrimental to national security, public order, public health and morality, or the rights and freedoms of other citizens.15
Article 58 (2): Religious or other beliefs are not grounds for refusing to fulfill the obligations imposed by the Constitution and laws.16
Bulgaria has also ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.17
Although the Constitution protects religious liberty de jure, the Government does not respect religious liberty de facto. Parliament has adopted a limited view of the Constitution’s protection of religious liberty. Since 1992, Parliament has passed numerous laws which restrict freedom of religion. In April 1993, Parliament negated the effects of a 1953 Decree which confiscated property of the Catholic Church.18 The Helsinki Commission maintains that, although the Church can regain its land legally, it “faces ‘administrative obstacles’ in the restoration process.”19 At the same time, a member of Parliament proposed a religion bill to allow Orthodoxy to be taught in the schools “and its doctrine spread about in the national mass media and in public.”20 This bill also would prohibit “‘non-traditional’ religions from using state and municipal property.”21
The government stringently upholds the Law on Denominations of 1949 which requires religious bodies to “register with the Directorate of Religious Affairs, or with the courts as a citizens’ association.”22 One of the consequences of the 1949 law is that, as the East-West Church and Ministry Report states, “no foreign person entering the country for the sole purpose of Christian work can acquire a residential visa for longer than one month.”23 Westerners who are not Americans must purchase a visa each time they enter the country.24
The Directorate of Religious Affairs in June 1994 announced changes in the Persons and Family Act which, according to News Network International (NNI), “requires all non- denominational religious organizations to seek governmental approval before registering.”25 The Government now forbids 24 organizations to register, states that they will lose their registration, and forbids them to engage in public activities.26 Those denied registration include an affiliate of Gideons International, a Bible center, a charity organization affiliated with the Church of God and a Christian literature group.27
According to a United Nations report, the Director of Religious Affairs in June 1992, following the Directorate for Denominations at the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ministers of the Bulgarian Government, stripped the Holy Synod [of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church] of all its rights and ordered the bank to freeze its assets and to transfer them to the new synod,” referring to the Law on Denominations of 1949 for legitimacy.28 The Government has since repealed certain sections of the Directorate as unconstitutional, but still holds that the central leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church had not been duly registered. When the Supreme Court in November 1992 held that the Directorate exceeded its authority, the Directorate yielded to the Court and appointed a new director.29
In early 1994, Bulgaria’s second largest city, Plovdiv, passed an ordinance to facilitate implementation of the 1949 Law, requiring all registered non-denominational organizations “with religious intent as its primary goal,” such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and followers of Sun Myung Moon and para-church organizations, to be approved by the Directorate of Religious Affairs and then “to re-register as a religious organization or to come under the umbrella of a specific, currently registered denomination” within 90 days or “the state would gain complete control of the organization’s assets and possessions.”30 East-West continues, “[T]o re-register, each organization is required to prove its need for re-registration, produce financial records for government approval, and undergo extensive interrogation.”31 The penalty for failing to re-register is a 10,000 leva ($180 U.S.) fine, or revocation of registration for those that fail to obey.32 The ordinance recognizes Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, Armenian-Gregorian and Jewish religions as having “the historical presence” in the city, but mandates that it will deny registration to other religious groups if “their activities are directed against national security, national self-consciousness, social order, health and morals, or the rights and freedoms of other citizens.”33 The director of the Bulgarian Directorate of Religious Affairs said that the purpose of the new law is “merely to distinguish religious communities from non-religious foundations. Dissolution of religious groups and confiscation of property are not the purpose of this law.”34 However, the secretary of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee argues that the law “eventually will lead to the dissolution of several religious associations or religious-affiliated associations.”35
In mid-March 1994, Plovdiv issued another ordinance which prohibits religious organizations from inviting people younger than 18 years to religious activities and from advertising religious events in public places. An ordinance limiting religious groups’ access to public halls has been in place since May 1992.36
Recent Reported Cases of Religious Intolerance
Religious intolerance falls into three main categories: media harassment, missionary harassment, and restrictions on freedom of worship.
MEDIA HARASSMENT. The media is often hostile toward Evangelical Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other “non-traditional” religions, characterizing Protestant groups as “cult-like and responsible for prostitution, drugs and teenage suicide.”37 A Bulgarian newspaper described the mood toward missionaries: “Sects ruin the character, they brainwash, destroy the mind, and break up the values of Bulgarians which make society… vulnerable to the political, economic and ‘cultural’ expansion which spreads after the coming of missionaries.”38 Since March 1993, the major newspapers have conducted a media campaign against all “non-traditional religions.”39 While the media blatantly attacks many religions, the Government denies evangelicals access to TV and radio, and thus prevents them from responding to such attacks.40 In June 1994, skinheads interrupted a worship service at a Church of God, holding captive 300 worshippers and severely beating seven church members.41 According to NNI, “[t]he roots of the June attack can be traced to the media . . . which have for months engaged in propaganda efforts against Protestants.”42
Media coverage has led to a situation where, as an Orthodox priest said, it is okay for young people to beat up evangelical pastors.43 The U.S. Department of State reports that media harassment characterized by “extensive press reporting which painted lurid and often inaccurate pictures of the activities of non-Orthodox religious groups,” lead to missionary harassment.44 The United Nations stated that, “[o]n 2 April 1993, Orthodox priests, students and teachers from the Eastern Orthodox Seminary reportedly marched through the streets of Sofia brandishing torches and setting fire to various symbols of the Protestant faith which they had seized.”45
In April 1993, more than 4,000 Protestants signed an appeal to the National Assembly “protesting acts of intolerance against them and against other non-Orthodox Christians.”46 As of December 1993, the Government appointed two Commissions in the National Assembly to consider Protestant claims, but had made no final determination. The government did state, however, that “It is true that some mass media do not make a distinction between sect and denomination, but the Executive Power has no right to encroach upon the freedom and independence of the mass media.”47
In addition to campaigning against non-traditional religions, the media also opposes Islam. Amnesty International found that “the Bulgarian authorities have attacked Islamic traditions and Islam in general with growing frequency in official publications.”48
MISSIONARY HARASSMENT. The U.S. State Department states that Protestant groups and Western Missionaries have reported harassment. “[S]pecific problems have included difficulties in obtaining visas and residence permits and, in one case, a bomb threat against the opening of an evangelical Bible college.”49 The report stated that a Hare Krishna who was “physically assaulted on the streets and the subject of threats, reportedly had difficulty obtaining adequate police protection.” When a neighborhood group petitioned for the eviction of Jehovah’s Witnesses, members of Parliament supported the petition.50 NNI states that local officials “reportedly seized and sealed” evangelistic materials stored temporarily in the garage of a missionary affiliated with Children Evangelism Fellowship.51
A staff member with Open Doors with brother Andrew reported that he was refused entry at a border checkpoint for carrying Bibles in September 1993.52
In addition to turning a deaf ear to missionary harassment, the state tightened restrictions on missionary entry and activity. In early 1994, the Government denied entry to a planeload of Swedish evangelists who arrived at the Sofia airport without visas.53 An NNI article reports that the state permits few, if any, missionaries with non-registered organizations to enter Bulgaria.54 Missionaries affiliated with churches or para-church organizations not yet registered with the Directorate of Religious Affairs in accordance with a February 1994 law, have extreme difficulty remaining in Bulgaria for longer than the 30 days permitted by their visas. When the Director of World Evangelical Fellowship inquired as to why his visa was denied, the government told him, “Because of the church.” In response to restrictions, some missionaries are expanding their job description to include entrepreneurial activities which allow them to enter the country under the designation of a businessman.55
The Government also imposes “restrictions on humanitarian aid received from abroad” and “excessive custom duties on church imports.” Of course, the Orthodox Church avoids such fees because the state handles its shipments.56
RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is attempting to become the only official Christian church in Bulgaria so that it can prohibit other churches from working legally. This would contradict Article 13 of the Bulgarian Constitution which provides for freedom of religious institutions and separation of them from government.57 Although the Orthodox Church has not achieved its goal through overt legislation, stringent implementation of a 1949 law requiring churches to register with the government may aid their cause.
A 1994 newspaper article reports, “Many evangelical leaders believe that the governmental persecution is being encouraged by Orthodox church leaders.”58 In 1994, government officials denied recognition to an alliance of Bulgarian evangelical churches to the chagrin of its leaders who assert that such action will limit their ability to resist infringement upon religious liberty. The denial applies to Baptist, Church of God, Congregational, Methodist and Pentecostal congregations. Leaders believe the Bulgarian government is attempting to break up a possibly evangelical “power block.”59 Several religious groups, including Word of Life, have been outlawed in Bulgaria by Parliament´s amendments to the Families and Persons Act, which legalized the tightening of registration requirements for groups whose activities had a religious element.60 More than 75 groups were given just three months to reregister, and after review by the Directorate and the Council of Ministers, more than two-thirds were denied.61
The government has prohibited churches from purchasing land, building on land that they own, and renting public facilities that were once open to them.62 Local authorities in Sofia halted construction of a church on land owned by the denomination by incorrectly claiming that the land was government property. Municipal authorities in Plovdiv passed an ordinance “against renting public spaces for religious meetings.” The government prevented two Christian groups in other cities from using public halls they had been renting.63
Registration requirements have restricted the freedom of worship of many churches. The head of Sofia’s Logos Bible Academy has been attempting to register his organization since 1991. The government informed him in 1994 that they had no record of his attempts to register. A Bulgarian Pastor who applied for registration in the fall of 1993 stated at the end of 1993 that “his denomination has been close to being registered several times, but each time was subjected to ‘unnecessary delaying tactics in the process.’”64 Despite eyewitness evidence to the contrary, the U.S. State Department reports that “No group was denied registration, and more than 30 are officially recognized.”65
For those religious groups that have been able to maintain their registration, the U.S. Department of State reports,
There were no restrictions on attendance at religious services or on private religious instruction. A school for imams, a Muslim cultural center, university theological faculties, and religious primary schools operated freely. Many new mosques were constructed, especially in the southern regions. Bibles and other religious materials in the Bulgarian language were freely imported and printed. Muslim, Catholic, and Jewish publications were published on a regular basis.”66
——————————————————————————-
ENDNOTES
1 “The State of Religious Freedom in Bulgaria.” (Sofia, Bulgaria: Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 1994): 4.
2 ibid.
3 Amnesty International Report 1993, “Bulgaria,” (Amnesty International Publications: London, 1994): 77.
4 “Bulgaria Human Rights Practices, 1993.” 1994 U.S. Department of State: Department of State Dispatch, (January 31, 1994): LEXIS 3.
5 “Suppression of Religious Liberty Around the World.” (Christian Solidarity International, 1994).
6 “Country Survey.” (Christian Solidarity International, 1994): 3.
7 Edward H. Lawson, ed., Encyclopedia of Human Rights (New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 1991): 140.
8 “In the face of endangered religious freedom, several Christian church bodies in Bulgaria have joined in an alliance,” National and International Religion Report, Vol. 7, No. 13 (June 14, 1993): 2.
9 GCN (EP: Sofia, Bulgaria, June 8, 1994).
10 Lawson, 140.
11 U.S. Department of State: LEXIS 11.
12 UN Doc. A/43/230 at Lawson, 140.
13 U.S. Department of State: LEXIS 11.
14 Gisbert H. Flanz, “Republic of Bulgaria,” in Albert P. Blaustein and Gisbert H. Flanz, eds., Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1992): 89.
15 ibid, 94.
16 ibid, 98.
17 22 September 1993 “Letter from the Special Rapporteur to the Government of Bulgaria,” in United Nations: Economic and Social Council, Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, E/C.4/1994/79, (20 January 1994): 28.
18 Thomas S. Giles, “Watchdog Group Says ‘Serious’ Human Rights Problems Remain.” News Network International (December 21, 1993): 21.
19 ibid.
20 ibid.
21 ibid.
22 U.S. Department of State: LEXIS 11.
23 Jennifer S. Blandford, “Bulgarian Evangelicals Under Siege.” East-West Church and Ministry Report, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 1994): 2.
24 ibid.
25 Thomas S. Giles, “Religious Groups Denied Permission to Register.” News Network International (July 6, 1994): 10.
26 ibid.
27 ibid, 10-11.
28 22 September 1993 “Letter from the Special Rapporteur to the Government of Bulgaria,” 27.
29 15 December 1993 “Permanent Mission of the Republic of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva transmission to the Special Rapporteur,” in United Nations: Economic and Social Council, 29.
30 Thomas S. Giles, “Religious Leader, Rights Advocates Criticize New Ordinance.” News Network International (May 10, 1994): 10.
31 Blandford, 2.
32 Giles, “Religious Leader, Rights Advocates Criticize New Ordinance,” 10.
33 ibid.
34 Giles, “New Para-Church Rule Raises Concerns,” News Network International (March 15, 1994): 12.
35 ibid.
36 Giles, “Religious Leaders, Rights Advocates Criticize New Ordinance,” 10.
37 Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 9.
38 Blandford, 1.
39 Giles, “Watchdog Group Says ‘Serious’ Human Rights Problems Remain,” 21.
40 Mike Creswell, “Evangelism complicated by cults in Bulgaria.” Foreign Mission News (Foreign Mission Board of the Souther Baptist Convention: December 6, 1993).
41 Maryann B. Hunsberger, “Anti-Protestant Propaganda Restricts Religious Liberty.” News Network International (August 17, 1994): 48.
42 ibid.
43 Baptist Press Release (May 31, 1994).
44 U.S. Department of State: LEXIS 10.
45 22 September 1993 “Letter from the Special Rapporteur to the Government of Bulgaria,” 27.
46 ibid.
47 15 December 1993 “Permanent Mission of the Republic of Bulgaria to the United Nations Office at Geneva transmission to the Special Rapporteur,” 29.
48 Amnesty International, “Religious Intolerance: Bulgaria.” (London: Amnesty International Publications, 1986): 5.
49 U.S. Department of State, LEXIS: 10.
50 U.S. Department of State, LEXIS: 10.
51 Thomas S. Giles, “Bulgarian Evangelicals Alliance Denied Recognition.” News Network International (October 26, 1993): 15.
52 ibid, 14.
53 Thomas S. Giles, “New Para-church Rule Raises Concerns.” News Network International (March 15, 1994): 12.
54 Giles, “Bulgarian Evangelicals Alliance Denied Recognition,” 15.
55 Giles, “Bulgarian Evangelical Alliance Denied Recognition,” 14-15.
56 Randy Tift, “Bulgarian Protestants Unite to Resist Attacks on ‘Sects.’” News Network International (June 30, 1993): 25.
57 Blandford, 2.
58 GCN.
59 Giles, “Bulgarian Evangelical Alliance Denied Recognition,” 13
60 U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1994 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1995): 768; and “Parents of Sect Members Urge Government to Take Steps Against Sects.” Daily News (August 23, 1995): 3.
61 ibid.
62 GCN.
63 Giles, “Bulgarian Evangelical Alliance Denied Recognition,” 14.
64 Giles, “Watchdog Group Says ‘Serious’ Human Rights Problems Remain,” 20.
65 U.S. Department of State: LEXIS 11.
66 ibid.
——————————————————————————–
Source: Handbook on Religious Liberty Around the World, Pedro C. Moreno, Editor. Charlottesville, VA: The Rutherford Institute.
The Christianization of Bulgaria
The Christianization of Bulgaria was initiated by Kniaz Boris I. Having inherited a strong and vital state from his predecessors, but defeated in almost all of the wars he waged, Boris I (852-889) made some far-sighted and far-reaching steps, which predetermined Bulgaria’s historical fate. In 864 he converted his court to Christianity and made the Christian religion official in the whole of his kingdom, manoeuvring between the contradictory interests of Rome and Constantinople during the entire period of his reign and achieving various advantages for his country.
The momentous affiliation of Bulgaria to the Christian civilization, through its Byzantine model, brought about considerable dividends in her international relations. Moreover, this act catalysed the on-going, and already advanced, process of assimilation of the Proto-Bulgarians by the Slavic majority – a process in which the Bulgarian nationality crystallized: Slavic in its self-identification, language and traditions.
In 886, invited by Prince Boris-Michael, the disciples of the Slav apostles Cyril and Methodius, who had been sent away from Greater Moravia by that time, arrived in Bulgaria. They were received with great honours by the Bulgarian governor of Belgrade (Serbia’s capital today) as soon as they had treached the border. With the approval of Boris I, two spiritual centres of tremendous significance for Slavic culture were formed in the capital city of Pliska, as well as in the other central town – Ohrid, in Macedonia. Only in Ohrid, in the course of 7 years as many as 3500 students were educated.
Steadfastly, Prince Boris I continued his mission. In 893 he summoned a Church Council in Pliska. There “pagan Pliska” was replaced by Veliki Preslav as Bulgaria’s capital. The Byzantine priests were sent away, because the country already had well-educated ecclesiastics of her own. And most importantly, at the 893 Council the Bulgarian Slavonic language was declared to be the official administrative and church language. This tongue was comprehensible to the common people. It formed the basis of a cultural tradition that, within a few decades only, overflowed Bulgaria’s frontiers and became spread far beyond them.
Having accomplished the work of his life, Boris, still in his strength, retired to a monastery. His reign had a cultural impact on the development of all Slavs and the whole of Eastern Europe. He died in 907. However, before finding eternal peace, in 893 he had to prove his loyalty to Christianity once again; in 893 he left the monastery for a while – to dethrone and blind his first-born son Prince Vladimir, who had been conspiring to restore heathendom.
After he died, Boris I became the first saint of the Bulgarian Church – the church he himself created. Nowadays, his Proto-Bulgarian, Turkic name, wrongly identified with the Slavonic name of Borislav; is in current usage in almost all countries that belong to the Christian civilization.
Bulgarian Protestant Heritage
After presenting at the ETS annual meeting in Washington, D.C. our ministry agenda took us to the great state of Illinois. We were due for a brief research visit at the library of the University of Illinois in Champaign. As one of the top public libraries in the United States, it has archived a large number of volumes related to the Bulgarian history. Once a visitor is allowed to “the stacks,” hundreds of thousand of volumes in the ten story building begin to tell the story of the centuries.
Of a greater interest among them were publications related to Bulgaria’s national renaissance of the 1800s. Many of the items in the library’s catalogue are extremely difficult to find in “the stacks.” Some of them are misfiled; others have not been checked out for decades and have not even received a barcode according to the new standard. Some, many of which in leaf format, have been purchased by the university’s Slavic Research Center and stored with virtually no catalog information.
Some Bulgarian Protestant publications like the Luboslovie journal (1844) and Zornitza (both newspaper and magazine editions) are carefully stored there. Along with them there are various protocols and papers related to the missionary school in Samokov, partial editions of prof. Shishamnov’s studies, 1940s audits of the American College in Sofia, a 1897 Bulgarian almanac, several copies of the almanac published by Bulgarian immigrants in the United States in the 1920s, the Robert’s College Herald, books about and by Riggs, Haskell, Fotinov, McGeehan and much more.
We were able to sort through the items described in the catalogue, check out and scan as many as possible during our short visit. We are hoping to be able to publish them very soon at the Protestantstvoto.com website which we have created as a center for research of Bulgarian Protestant heritage.
St. Symeon the New Theologian
On the Mystical Life
Vol. 1 The Church and the Last Things (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995)
Vol. 2 On Virtue and Christian Life (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996)
Vol. 3 Life, Times and Theology (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997)
I first heard of Symeon the New Theologian from one of my professors in seminary, Steven J. Land. Dr. Land defended a dissertation on Pentecostal Spirituality, which has now become a standard text for students of Pentecostal theology. One of the prime examples of proto-Pentecostal mysticism used in the text is Symeon the New Theologian, a 10th century mystic. Since my first encounter in seminary, I have desired to examine Symeon’s writings in person and being Slavic in background I have been partially able to do so because some are available through the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Therefore, I was thrilled when St. Vladimir’s Seminary published the trilogy in English. The point I would like get across is that if you are a Pentecostal scholar, reading Symeon’s writings is a must.
Do not be scared by the word mystical. Reading Symeon, one quickly finds out that the Pentecostalism experienced in any given holiness church is much more drastic, than any mystical example Symeon may have had.
Symeon’s writings do not fit a concrete type of literature. They explain theology in laymen’s terms, while taking the reader to the depth of the most intense theological discussions of the ages. Much like a Pentecostal testimony, the words have a way of bringing the experience of God close to the heart, while at the same time exalting His glory to the highest of all.
Therefore, a true Pentecostal commentary of the trilogy must begin with Symeon’s testimony of his experience. It is hardly an enigma to recognize that Symeon speaks abut the same experience, which we Pentecostals testify of – the experience of the Holy Spirit. He describes the event as “seeing the light” that is felt emotionally and physically and which transforms the soul with its divine power.
The first volume, entitled The Church and the Last Thing, begins with the Genesis stories of the Creation, Adam and Eve in the Garden, the first sin and God’s pan for salvation. For the Western reader, this approach resembles Augustine’s De Civitate Dei. For the Eastern Pentecostal reader it is similar to the sermons we were accustomed to under the Communist Regime, where the pastor would begin a message with Genesis and finish with Revelation. And for any Pentecostal, Symeon’s approach reveals God’s plan for man and His divine provision through the ages in the ultimate goal of history beginning with the first creation and finishing with the already-not-yet eschatological reality.
Eschatology for Symeon is not just the last things, but the first things now made perfect by God. It is both near and immanent, much like the Pentecostal expectation of the Lord’s return. It includes Israel, the Heavens and the Judgment Day. Interestingly, Symeon brings in the experience of a personal new beginning based on a free human will. He sees the end as closely connected to the personal choice for eternity. The terms “foreordained” and “called” are examined in the saying “Those Whom He Foreknew, the Same He Also Predestined.” The claim that some are elected and others rejected is refused by Symeon with the simple, but strong words: “Did he ever say to some: ‘Do not repent for I will not accept you?’ …. Of course not!”
The second volume, dedicated to the life of the Christian believer, comes as close to a Pentecostal experience as can be imagined. Symeon is quick to point out his own experience with God identifying it with the words of the apostle, “He appeared also to me” (1 Corinthians 15:8).
He speaks of the conscious possession of the Holy Spirit, claiming that one cannot “have” the Spirit and not know about it. For Symeon, the knowledge of the Spirit is the experience of the Sprit accompanied with feelings and emotions. For “only the dead feel nothing,” but when you possess the Spirit you know because you can feel. How close is this terminology to the Pentecostal, “I’ve got the Holy Ghost” and “I feel it. I feel it?” To the skeptic, Symeon further declares: “Do not say that it is impossible to receive the Spirit of God. …. On the contrary, it is entirely possible when one desires it.”
Symeon continues with the statement, that the believer is “called to see God in this life.” The conscious possession of the Holy Spirit is not only a personal experience with God, it is a present eschatological foreseeing and a prophetic anticipation of what is yet to come. According to Symeon, “Hearsay is not enough. The saints describe what they have seen” (emphasis mine); therefore, “through the Holy Spirit the saints become eyewitnesses of the world to come.”
In the last volume, Symeon speaks of the Christian sacraments clearly differentiating between the sacramental and personal experience of God. His theological overview articulates the incarnation, but refuses to explain the Trinity with human terms. Instead, Symeon calls the Church to “participate in the life of the Trinity,” again juxtaposing theological reasoning against personal experience of God. This particular practice is accompanied with an interesting note from the author about church politics. In a typical mystical manner, Symeon urges the believer to follow the mandate of the Spirit rather than the mandate of the Church.
The trilogy presents the New Theologian as new in name, but old in religion and original in the personal experience of God. This fact proves that through the ages, there have always been people searching for God with an open heart and experiencing His presence in a Pentecostal manner. It further defines the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit as the true restoration of the Early Church praxis. And finally, it proves Land’s thesis that Pentecostalism is more Orthodox than Catholic and more Eastern than Western.
When I became Pentecostal, I did not know this would become the “new fad” of 21st century spirituality. What I knew was that I experienced God personally and He personally saved my soul. Symeon’s testimony is not much different and can be summed up in one statement: one can make the reality of heaven the reality of this life by having a real experience with God.
Romani Evangelical Theology
The Role of Evangelical Theology among Roma Communities in Bulgaria
The Roma (Gypsy) ethnic group, which abides on the territory of virtually every country of the world, has found prolific context of existence within the borders of Bulgaria – a postcommunist, Eastern European country expecting its immediate merge within the European Union.
Despite the racial and religious tensions, quite typical for the Balkan region, the Roma ethnic group has historically flourished in Bulgaria. After the liberation of the country from the Ottoman oppression, Roma communities were freely established throughout the territory of the new Bulgarian Republic. During the brief nationalistic waves that followed, the Bulgarian state generally protected its ethnic minorities including Armenians, Jews and Romanies. The Communist Regime in the country presented a dilemma for ethnic minorities, especially when the infamous “Vazrozhdenski” (revival, renovation) process took place in its latter period attempting to assimilate cultural minorities within the Bulgarian nation.
Today, the Roma culture is an undividable part of the Bulgarian reality forming the third largest ethnic and cultural group in the country. Every Bulgarian city has a Roma suburb and every small village has Roma inhabitants. The last census shows their number is 313,396, but analysts insist that these figures should be handled carefully because many of the Romani prefer to declare external ethnic self-identification.
Most Romani are from the Muslim Roma circles that present themselves as Turks. A portion of the Christian Romani identifies themselves as Bulgarians, and a third as Wallachs or Romanian in origin. Most Romani speak more than one language at home. The most used language among them is, of course, the Roma language (67%), followed by Bulgarian (51%), and Turkish (34%).
The living conditions of the Roma communities are often dire. Many are still living in poor quarters resembling ghettos. The Roma child mortality rate is much higher than that of the Bulgarians: 240 per 1,000 versus 40 per 1,000.
The Roma community is characterized by lower levels of education. Consequently, its representatives are less competitive. Less than 1% of the Roma women in Bulgaria have higher education. The number of high school-educated among them is 4 percent.
A great deal of opportunities have been introduced for the Roma minorities in Bulgaria by the European Union. The integration of Bulgaria within the European Union has concurred with a general self-realization among Roma communities with political, economical and religious implications.
Much of the current revitalization of Roma communities is owed to the transforming power of evangelical theology actively present among them. Today, nearly a quarter of Bulgarian evangelicals claim to be of Roma origin and the number continues to grow.
Ethics of Online Counseling
by Kathryn DonevWe live in a fast-paced society where virtually everything is just a click away. With the click of a button, you can pay your bills or even have merchandise shipped to your front door without ever leaving the comforts of home. The Internet has made this and much more a reality. The number of Internet users today is reported at 972,828,001, which is 15.2% of the world’s population and the percentage of population usage growth during 2000-2005 was reported at 169.5% (Internet World Stats, 2005). As the number of Internet users across the globe continues to soar, more and more resources are becoming accessible online. The possibilities of services that can be offered on the Internet are endless. Today, one can even receive online professional services such as counseling.
Online counseling is a relatively new service. Therefore, there currently exists limited research to support or disconfirm its effectiveness. The long-term ramifications of such an experience are yet unknown. There are many concerned with the ethical dilemmas associated with online counseling. Below I will briefly explore the ethical issues centered around online counseling, beginning with a definition of a traditional counseling relationship:
A traditional counseling relationship is an interpersonal relationship between a client and counselor in which the counselor provides the client a reflection of the client’s self in a safe atmosphere in which the client feels comfortable enough to completely relay information to the counselor in order to gain order over personal conflicts.
Confidentiality:
The first and most obvious ethical dilemma with rendering mental health services over the Internet is one of confidentiality and privacy. The Internet is an open network and therefore is not secure. Consequently, when communicating through an insecure source one cannot be completely guaranteed that what is being revealed in a counseling relationship remains only in that relationship.
Because the Internet is not secure, there are numerous opportunities for an invasion of privacy. Such could occur if one were receiving counseling while at the work place where his or her email is subject to being read because it is considered company property. Other possibilities include, but are not limited to, that another could access confidential emails intentionally by eavesdropping or unintentionally if information was misdirected and intercepted.
Identification:
Another ethical issue associated with online counseling involves client and counselor identification. Without being able to confirm the identity of a client during each interaction, one cannot be certain of who is being counseled. The danger in this circumstance is that one could easily misrepresent him or herself and the counselor could be mislead to believe that he or she is counseling a particular individual when in fact this may not be the case. If this were to happen, confidential information could be unintentionally divulged to a third party.
Additionally, if the client were to misrepresent his or her own identity, for instance their sex or ethnicity, this could be just as damaging and could hinder the counseling process. If a counselor does not fully know with whom he or she is working, then the story which is being revealed by the client cannot appropriately be put into context, thus resulting in misinterpretation of what the client is communicating.
Virtual Relationship:
One of the most common negative results of interacting online is the phenomenon of being in a virtual relationship. Both the counselor as well as the client are in a sense unreal, they are simply “cyber-beings” as the author likes to describe them. Being in a virtual relationship causes an individual to have no sense of commitment to the counseling process. The client is simply writing another email via a keyboard and has minimum personal connection to the counselor.
Due to the lack of a personal relationship with the counselor, a client may be more easily offended by the advice that is given in an online counseling session. A client may feel that a cyber-being has no right to become so personal. If this is the case, then a client may also be more apt to end the relationship either temporarily or permanently by simply clicking a button.
The first and foremost responsibility of a counselor is to protect the welfare of his or her client. Yet, if one is counseling a virtual person then it is nearly impossible to be able to ensure the client’s safety. A counselor does not even truly know whom they are counseling or the location of the client’s residence. With this being the case, a counselor cannot intervene if a client is a danger to him or herself or others. A counselor’s hands are tied when it comes to his or her “Duty to Warn.”
Dishonesty:
As a result of communicating over an insecure source to a cyber-being, a client receiving online services may not be willing to be straightforward about all information. Additionally, when information is shared with a lack of commitment to the counseling process this could lead the client to actually falsify information. Not only is there a danger that a client might be misleading or may even lie, but there is also the risk that a client could intentionally leave out parts of his or her story. A client may feel the need to be deceitful due to the fact that he or she may fear a breach of confidentiality or simply feel no responsibility to be honest because no personal relationship exists between counselor and client. If this is the case, then the counselor cannot work at full capacity because of a lack of all the pieces of the client’s history.
Dishonesty leads to confusion which makes the counseling process difficult if not impossible. If a client were able to be assured that what is said would stay only between counselor and client, then there would be more freedom to be completely honest. Also, if a client were in a face-to-face relationship, they may perhaps feel more of an obligation to be upfront.
Lack of Nonverbals:
Nearly 94 percent of all communication is nonverbal. We communicate with our facial expressions, posture, eye contact and so forth. Needless to say, reading nonverbals is an essential element of counseling. If one is being counseled online, these nonverbals are unobservable and such is detrimental to the counseling process. Nonverbals which cannot be observed during an online session are nervous behaviors, whether eye contact is maintained, angle and distance of body in relationship to the counselor, etc. Also, a client may be typing content which appears to be uplifting, but at the same time may be crying. Conversely, a client may be typing distraught messages but may be laughing while doing so. Such is evident of inappropriate affect and is a good indicator of possible mental diagnoses.
Abandonment Issues:
Another responsibility of the counselor is to not abandon a client. Yet, abandonment may be impossible to avoid when counseling occurs online due to the instability of the Internet. Communication could be hindered because of technology failures or glitches or as a result of a poor Internet connection.
If a relationship is suddenly ended for any reason, it would be almost, if not, impossible for a counselor to get back in touch with his or her client due to the fact that in an online counseling relationship the client is anonymous in most of the cases; thus making abandonment impossible to avoid. Furthermore, if a client were to abruptly leave a counseling session after threatening to harm him or herself or others, then not having the ability to protect your client would be the ultimate case of abandonment.
Conclusion:
There appears to be many “ifs” in the ethical dilemma of online counseling and not enough certainty. “If” we as counselors could guarantee the privacy of our clients, “if” we could make certain of who we are counseling, “if” our client is completely truthful and “if” we were guaranteed they would not terminate before a session is over, then there would be little debate over whether online counseling should be attempted. Nevertheless, as of now, the “ifs” do exist.
Counseling, whether online or in person, involves much responsibility. When counseling an individual, you are placed in a position where you are a major influence in that person’s life. A counselor holds much control over the mental health of another. If Internet counseling is attempted, it should only be done by a competent professional who is well-educated in the field and should only be done via secure websites or with an encryption technological e-mail communication application.Counseling online is a great responsibility as is counseling an individual face to face. As well, such a relationship should be treated with the highest ethical professionalism. Regardless of that an online client is communicating in a virtual world, his or her problems are still very much real.
Reference:
Internet World Stats (2005). Usage and Population Statistics, downloaded from http://www.Internetworldstats.com/stats.htm on 12/2/05. 10 a.m.
Pomacs and Macedonians
Both groups represent special cases in terms of history, magnitude, and impact on political life. More significant are the Bulgarian Muslims (‘Pomaks’) because of their number and ‘borderline’ position between the Bulgarian majority, with which they share a common mother tongue, and the Turkish minority whose religion they profess. Bulgarian Muslims are ethnic Bulgarians who were converted to Islam during the Ottoman yoke. Their number was approximately 20,000 immediately after restoration of the Bulgarian state in 1878, and by the 1920’s reached 88,000. The sharp increase in figures between 1910 and 1920 was due to re-integration of Bulgaria with newly liberated territories in the Rhodopes and Rila regions. Present day their number is estimated between 200,000 and 280,000. In spite of their ethnic origin, Bulgarian Muslims’ historical fate is identical in many respects to that of other Muslim groups. Bulgarian Muslims have been subject to influences for assimilation in both possible regards. On one hand, study of Turkish language has been stimulated in order to integrate all Muslims into Bulgarian society as a whole. The result is that the Turkish language is perceived as a mother tongue by some 6% of community members.
The issues of ‘Macedonians’ are not any less complicated or controversial. One thesis defines them as a regional community based on the argument that they are an Orthodox population speaking a Bulgarian dialect in common with Bulgarian history, traditions, and values. Based on the right to self-determination, a contrary thesis defines them as a separate ethno-cultural community. Both views have political expression in the activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization -VMRO (a party seated in Parliament), and the United Macedonian Organization – OMO Ilinden (an unrecognized and unregistered separatist movement). Bulgarian policy towards ‘Macedonians’ has swayed between two extremes. In the 1940’s, much support was given to the idea of a socialist-oriented Balkan Federation (to includes all Balkan states and thus to resolve every and each ethnic and religious problem in the area). The population of the Pirin district bordering FRY Macedonia and Greece was stimulated, even forcibly, to identify itself as ‘Macedonians’. According to the 1956 census, 187,789 Bulgarians declared themselves as ‘Macedonians’. Later on, the policy altered sharply, and ‘Macedonians’ disappeared from official statistics. They have not turned up there till today.
Roma Community in Bulgaria
The third largest ethnic and cultural group in the country is the Gypsies (or Roma). According to the last census, their number is 313,396. Analysts insist that these figures should be handled carefully because, as they say, 30% of the Gypsies prefer to declare external ethnic self-identification. Their larger part is from the Muslim Gypsy circles that present themselves as Turks; a part of the Christian Gypsies identify themselves as Bulgarians, and a third small part – as Wallachs (Romanian origin). The variety of empirical references of self-identification is manifested in regard to both the ethnic adherence and denomination, and to the language. Most Gypsies speak more than one language at home, the most used being the Gypsy language (67%), followed by Bulgarian (51%), and Turkish (34%). The situation of the Roma population in the country is extremely complicated. Their living conditions are more than poor. Despite the fact the at the end of 1970’s about 15,000 Roma families obtained long-term, low-interest loans to construct homes, a lot of them are still living in poor quarters resembling ghettos. The Roma child mortality rate is much higher than that of the Bulgarians: 240 per 1,000 versus 40 per 1,000, and some diseases like tuberculosis is three times more frequent. The degree of unemployment is three times higher than the national average. The Roma community is characterized by a lower level of education, which makes its representatives less competitive. There are strong prejudices against the Gypsies shared by the Bulgarian majority and other major minority groups. Unfortunately, the media and especially some nationalistic-oriented newspapers play a considerable role in reproducing and expanding these negative attitudes by emphasizing that Gypsies have a higher crime rate than other groups.
Turkish Minority in Bulgaria
The Turks are the largest minority group and at the same time the one with the highest degree of ethnic consciousness. They are basically concentrated in two regions – in northeastern Bulgaria and in the Rhodopes region at the Turkish frontier. The Turkish population is mostly rural: 68 out of 100 people live in villages and 32 in cities. The Turkish community in Bulgaria is conditioned by two opposite factors: a birth-rate higher than the national average and numerous, massive emigration waves. The first emigration of Turkish people occurred after Liberation from the Turkish yoke. In the 1878-1912 period, Bulgaria saw the exodus of 350,000 Muslims (Turks, Bulgarian Muslims, Circassians, and Tartars). Roughly 100,000 of them had emigrated by 1884, 250,000 after unification of Eastern Romenlia and the Bulgarian Principality from 1885 till World War I. Until 1934, the average annual number of emigrants was 10,000, and after the nationalistic coup d’etat in 1934 it became 20,000. The next massive wave of emigration occurred at the beginning of the 1950’s: 155,000 persons. Another 115,000 left the country after the signing of the Bulgarian-Turkish Agreement on reuniting separated families in 1968. The emigration peak was in 1989-1992 when more than 300,000 left the country.
Ethnic Minorities in Bulgaria
The country of Bulgaria was established in 681 A.D. on the Balkan Peninsula. Through the centuries of its existence, ethnic and religious groups have crossed its territory, reforming its borders and creating a multicultural context where more than 100 languages and dialects are spoken. Today the Bulgarian people live along with several ethnic minorities in the clash between Christianity, Muslim and Judaism.
Bulgaria could be referred to as a country of emigration, since there were several major migration waves mostly toward Turkey during the 20th century. Nevertheless, the population’s ethnic composition remains relatively homogeneous, 85.7% being Bulgarians, yet characterized by ethnic and religious diversity among the rest of its population. The two major ethnic groups are Turks and Gypsies, which represent 9.4% and 3.7% of the Bulgarian nation. The number of Jews has decreased tangibly both in absolute and relative figures due to a massive emigration of about 45,000 people to Israel in 1848. It is worth mentioning that Bulgaria is one of the few European countries which preserved its Jewish community during the World War II. Not a single Jew from Bulgaria was deported to Nazi concentration camps.
As regards religion and language, Orthodox Christianity and Bulgarian are the most widespread ones. The huge majority of Bulgarians (and around 60% of Gypsies plus 1% of ethnic Turks), declares adherence to the Christian cultural tradition. The second significant religion is Islam, professed by most Turks, all Bulgarian Muslims, and 39% of the Gipsy/Roma population. All Bulgarians speak their mother tongue. Almost the same is true for the Turks who speak Bulgarian as a second language beside Turkish (one third of their families even speak Bulgarian at home).
